1

BP's Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Case Study Analysis

Student Name

Institution

Course Title

Lecturer’s Name

Date
 2

Abstract
On the evening of April 20, 2010, an incident occurred about 49 miles off the Louisiana
coast within the Gulf of Mexico that surprised the world with the dangers of offshore oil drilling.
11 people lost their lives when the Deep Horizon oil rig owned by Transocean but was under
lease with the BP PLC exploded. Due to the explosions, millions of barrels of oil were released
into the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in widespread environmental harm and devastation to the
ecosystem and the shoreline communities. To better understand the underlying reasons for the
events leading to the disaster in 2010 and how they could have been presented through ethical
behaviour, the paper conducts an ethical analysis of the event. This includes establishing the
context of the oil spills and focusing on the disasters through the lens of engineering ethics. The
paper argues that ethical behaviour is key in preventing such disasters, particularly engineering
ethics in large engineering projects such as the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract............................................................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................3
1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................4
2.0 Ethical Analysis.........................................................................................................................7

2.1 Ethical and Moral Frameworks.............................................................................................7

2.2 Relevance of Engineering Ethics in Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill........................................9
2.2 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; Problem of Many Hands......................................................13

3.0 Discussion................................................................................................................................14
4.0 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................15
References......................................................................................................................................17
 4

BP's Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Case Study Analysis

1.0 Introduction
A series of events occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig on the evening of April
20, 2010, leading to a cloud of gas surrounding the rig and setting off several explosions. The rig
was leased by British Petroleum (BP), and an order was given to leave the rig with the fire
burning for more than 36 hours as there was continuous oil and gases occurring from the well
(Clement & John, 2022). BP was considered a critical stakeholder in taking accountability for the
events leading to the explosions as they were the client having leased the oil rig. Figure 1 below
illustrates the company’s logo popularly known around the world.
Figure 1: BP

Source: BP, 2023

Studies and reports have been written on what went wrong before and after the explosion.
For instance, French-McCay et al. (2022) report that the explosion at Deepwater Horizon oil
explosions killed 11 people and wounded many with the explosion resulting from the methane
bubble from the well resulting in loss of power at the rig. According to Wise et al. (2022), the
 5

Blowout protector was supposed to be active in such events by stopping the flow of oil from the
well and, in emergencies, separating the well from the rig and sealing it, preventing explosions at
the rig. Stewart et al. (2022) report that when the explosions occurred, the rig manually shut a
valve before the failure and loss of power. However, this caused the pipes to build up pressure
and need. The explosions resulted in adverse effects in the short term and the long term on the
environment with the immediate impacts being the deaths of those in the rig as well as to the
ocean as can be seen in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig Explodes

Source: (Schumm & Rochette, 2020)

After hours of burning, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig slipped into the sea while waters
from the Gulf of Mexico extinguished the fire. However, crude oil was pouring into the Gulf for
about 87 days. Wise et al. (2022) report that the cause of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has
been identified as the deficiencies in the blowout protector and the poor cementing process of the
good casing, which would have prevented accidental spills from the well. Crandall et al. (2016)
argue that the disaster at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig was prevented by avoiding mistakes such
as poor sealing of the well and inadequate safety systems, composed of poor decision-making.
Understanding what went wrong before and during the disaster is critical as it can help prevent
such disasters.
The explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig was a significant disaster that led to the
loss of 11 workers and injuries of about 17 but also is reported as the largest oil spill in history.
Garcia (2021) stated that the in the next three months after the explosions, about five million
 6

barrels of oil were related to the sea. In agreement, Garcia (2021) reports that the oil spill caused
wide-ranging damage to the coastal ecosystems marine life, and adverse severe economic
impacts on the local fishing and tourism industry. Some of the adverse effects can be seen in how
the ecosystems was impacted as can be seen by the bird in Figure 3 below which is ridden with
oil and unable to maneuver in the ocean.
Figure 3: Impact on the Ecosystem

Source (Ebinger, 2016)

Investigations after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill demonstrate that deviant behaviour
and negligence were critical causes of the events that led to the oil spill. French-McCay et al.
(2022) point out that despite the acknowledgment of the stakeholders of the risks and dangers in
the offshore oil industry, the industry has continued fighting the government on how to prevent
such disasters in the future, with some players in the industry mainly focused on profit at the
expense of safety. For instance, Crandall et al. (2016) report that to prevent deep water blowouts,
and proper guidelines must be followed in the cementing process and securing the quality of the
cement work. While at the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout, the cementing process
was not controlled and overseen using federal regulation, it was still an ethical obligation by the
company to ensure appropriate safety measures were undertaken, including high-quality cement
work. Wise et al. (2022) report that the reduction of costs by BP led to the company making
critical decisions which led to the incident. In agreement, Clement et al. (2022) report that less
 7

drilling of mud was undertaken than expected generally with a long, robust housing design used
and six rather than 23 recommended centralizers. Unethical decision-making and immorality,
such as taking shortcuts in work, are important elements to consider in understanding the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
The cementing process was done poorly, whereby BP decided not to carry out the
cement roof, which is generally accepted as the gold standard in testing the integrity of the
cement work as a way to save costs and secure more profitability (National Research Council,
2012). Stakeholders, including Minerals Management Services, Transocean, and Halliburton,
also failed to ensure safety in the oil rig and instead focused on finishing their part of the job fast.
In particular, Halliburton ignored the tests that could have revealed that the cement work had a
problem and was unstable. Poor integrity led to the approval of the cementation at the rig, with
tests such as pressure and cement tests ignored which could have provided a warning on the
instability of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig well. In addition to the unethical behaviour leading
to the disaster, unethical behaviour was also displayed during and after the disaster. French-
McCay et al. (2022) report close management of survivors, including influencing their reporting
of events with the control of information, making it possible for the stakeholders to try to unify
their versions of the incident before it was made public. In agreement, Stewart et al. (2022)
report that the banning of mobile phones and the internet was used. It is essential to conduct an
ethical analysis of the Deepwater Horizon oil spills, including the action of the major
stakeholders, such as the management of BP company before, during, and after the disaster. The
following report focuses on the ethics surrounding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the
relevance of the code of ethics, guidelines, and ethical and moral frameworks in decision-making
and action in engineering.

2.0 Ethical Analysis

2.1 Ethical and Moral Frameworks

To make good ethical decisions, it is important to recognize and have sensitivity towards
the ethical issues and a structured approach of exploring the ethical aspects in a context and
weighing the options on how choices will impact stakeholders. According to Gupta et al. (2021),
firms must have a structured framework they utilize in ethical decision-making and make it part
of their culture. In agreement, Valentine and Godkin (2019) state that developing an ethical
 8

culture makes individuals familiar with ethical decision-making. There are three major
frameworks that firms and individuals can employ in making decisions; the consequentialist, the
duty and the virtue framework. First is the consequentialist framework; the decision-makers
focus on the consequences and effects of the possible courses of action, including considering
the people who will be directly or indirectly impacted (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2021). The focus is
arriving at a decision that produces the best. For instance, utilitarianism is a type of
consequentialism whereby right from wrong is determined based on the outcomes. The ethical
choice results in the greatest good for the greatest number (Valentine & Godkin, 2019). The most
ethical decision in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was accepting liability, taking corrective
measures such as ocean cleanup and advancing the necessary settlements.

BP has taken an ethical approach and acted utilitarianism, whereby it cleaned up to stop
the spread of oil spills (Coeckelbergh, 2012). Focusing on the medical needs of the populations,
settlements for affected parties and contributing to the Gulf restoration fund is also ethical. The
advantages of the consequentialist framework are that there is a focus on the consequences of the
action allowing a pragmatic approach, and it is appropriate in situations that affect many people.
However, it is limited in that it is not always possible to predict an action's consequences, with
some decisions expected to have good consequences that can end up harming people (Metcalf &
Moss, 2019). For instance, in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the focus of BP was on
profitability which is a benefit of profit maximization for their investors, but it ended up having
significant adverse impacts. According to Wittmer (2019), a feature of the consequentialist
framework is that it involves compromise, and people can react negatively to the concept of the
end as a justification for the means. This can be seen in the case of Deepwater Horizon, whereby
the stakeholders, including the public, did not appreciate the compromise made by the company
in designing and developing the oil rigs.

The second framework is the duty framework, focusing on duties and obligations that
individuals and institutions may have within a given situation. According to Wittmer (2019),
ethical conduct and obligations are defined by the duties one has and doing the right thing, with
the goal focused being the correct action. The advantages of the duty framework are that it helps
create a system of rules based on the expectations of all people, resulting in everyone with
 9

dignity and respect. Further, the framework is also based on following moral rules or duty
regardless of the outcome, and thus one can be ethical and still experience a bad result (Ferrell &
Fraedrich, 2021). The framework aligns with Kant's Theory of categorical imperative, which
focuses on moral law subjective to persons requiring ethical decisions based on dignity and
goodwill (Metcalf & Moss, 2021). However, the framework is limited in that it often appears
impersonal and can result in harm despite respecting moral rules (Gupta et al., 2021). The
approach is rigid and does not consider the context in which the ethical decision is made.

The third framework involves the virtue framework, which attempts to identify the
character traits which motivate individuals within a given situation. According to Wittmer
(2019), the focus of the virtue framework is on how the decisions and actions take to reflect and
communicate about our character. Ethical behaviour is determined based on what an ethical
individual would do in a situation, and decisions are made based on it. The advantage of the
virtue framework is that it allows a wide range of behaviour to be considered ethical, considering
all aspects of a situation in determining whether the behaviour is ethical (Metcalf & Moss, 2019).
However, considering many elements and variances of human experience makes it difficult to
resolve ethical disputes. However, Gupta et al. (2021) indicate that the three frameworks are not
without limitations. It is crucial to acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of the
frameworks to help decide on the most appropriate framework for the situation faced.
Consequently, the consequentialist framework may not be optimal in disasters like the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In cases such as that of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which
involves a complex engineering infrastructure, it is important to consider the ethics in
engineering.

2.2 Relevance of Engineering Ethics in Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

After engineering disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon case, the standard response is
often to take a position of moral responsibility against the individuals and to collectives treated
as individuals, such as BP as a company. According to Crandall et al. (2016), the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill reminded the world of offshore accidents which had occurred in the past, such
as the Piper Alpha in 1988, whereby a platform exploded in the North Sea as well as the Exxon
oil spill in 1989. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was mainly blamed on BP, the company's
 10

management such as Tony Hayward, Barack Obama/the US government as the regulator, and
other companies involved in the oil rig construction. According to Herkert et al. (2020), it is
essential to note that understanding disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill needs to go
beyond the traditional theories of moral responsibilities and focus on engineering ethics. This is
because traditional theories of moral responsibility and decision-making have some limitations.
In agreement, Herkert et al. (2020) argue that the attribution of moral obligations based on
traditional theories focuses on elements of knowledge, control, and agency, and this seldom
aligns in cases of engineering actions. It is, therefore, essential to consider the specifics of
engineering ethics and ensure that the moral responsibility is accurately established.
The importance of engineering ethics is because investigations have revealed that the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig's engineering issues and design choices led to the explosions and
spillage in the Gulf of Mexico. As noted in the introduction, the focus on profits and cutting
costs led to the events leading to the event as choices were more expensive than what was left in
place. For instance, if the proper integrity tests had been carried out, they would have revealed
that the cementing was improperly done and could have necessitated starting the construction of
the oil rig almost from the start. By preceding the tests and proper methodology, BP cut its costs.
Important lessons can be learned from the Deepwater Horizon oil spillage. A clear and most
obvious lesson is that engineers must prioritize the public good and public safety during all their
design and construction processes. Corporations, engineering educators, and engineering
societies must meet the challenge of implementing and developing the engineers' ethical
behaviour, particularly in light of the events revealed in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Contemporary codes of ethics, which are put forward by the majority of engineering
societies, indicate that the most critical responsibility of the engineer is protecting the health,
safety, and welfare of the public (Gotterbarn et al., 2009). For instance, The American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics Code of Ethics (2013) states that engineers need to “hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their duties.”
Similarly, guidelines are provided by the Software Engineering Code of Ethics (1997) arguing
that their engineers should Approve software only if they have a well-founded belief that it is
safe, meets specifications, passes appropriate tests, and does not diminish the quality of life,
diminish privacy or harm the environment….”. Further, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) Code of Ethics indicates that is engineers should “... hold paramount the
 11

safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable
development practices, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the
environment”. For instance, in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in designing and constructing the
rig, there was a failure to protect the public, including disregarding the environment's dangers.
For instance, the ecosystem in the surrounding ocean were immediately affected as can be seen
in Figure 4 below with the long term impacts still being investigated to date.
Figure 4: Effects of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Source: (Vizcarra, 2020)

Davis (2012) indicates that engineering codes of ethics are limited in that they differ in
their sources of moral authority, such as organizational code and professional code, and are
unenforceable through law. Despite this, the code of ethics is accepted as the statement of the
critical professional values in engineering projects and the ethical commitment to always protect
the public good despite the associated costs.
The ethical responsibility of an engineer does include considerations of such factors as
cost or schedule but rather should be focused on the common good. According to Harris (2008),
engineers and managers of construction projects may face the challenge of constraints from their
 12

clients, including performing under strict timelines and resources. While the stakeholders
involved directly involved in the management of the company, such as the BP management and
BP Board of Directors, had legitimate concerns about their company by seeking to maximize the
wealth of their investors by securing the profitability of the company, this should not have
interfered with the engineering of the oil rig. Engineers must be able to separate the different
requirements from their clients and the goals set with their obligations and ethics as professionals
EEE. In agreement, EEE indicates that being an engineer means that public safety and welfare
are a high priority as they are entrusted with the design and construction of significant projects in
the environment and society. The errors mentioned above in the design and construction of the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig resulted in deaths, injuries, and comprehensive reaching costs and
were clear violations of the code of ethics of engineers. The oil spill at Deepwater Horizon
included adverse human and environmental consequences, including adverse health outcomes
from ingesting or inhaling toxins, destruction of marine ecosystems, and destabilization of
livelihoods that depended on the ocean (Crandall et al., 2016). Further, the National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration (2017) reports that the total estimated costs for the oil spill were
approximately $61.6 billion, alongside other costs arising after the spill, such as the development
of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration at $5.3 billion, $4 billion in criminal files, restoration of
natural resources along the Gulf of Mexico at $8.8 billion, and the $20.8 billion in a legal
settlement to name a few. All the dire consequences of the oil spill could have been prevented by
observing ethical behaviour. The decision-making by engineers and the management of the
companies involved failed in prioritising public safety by making questionable and borderline
illegal decisions in the construction of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Garcia (2021) reports that
the management of BP acknowledged that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was significant and
tragic and made promises to take measures to prevent such occurrences in the future, as indicated
by the quote of Richard Morrison, Chairman & President of BP, “The Deepwater Horizon
disaster was tragic, nothing we do or say is going to change that. What we can do is change the
future. We can prevent this from happening again.” While the management acknowledged the
Deepwater Horizon oil spillage as a disaster and promised to change the future, there is a need
first to understand where the failures were before promising to rectify such disasters.
 13

2.2 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; Problem of Many Hands

The problem of many hands involves complex actions or inactions by organizations such
as corporate organizations and government entities, which make it difficult to assign
accountability in the face of collection action (Herkert et al., 2020). According to Nissenbaum
(1996), “Where a mishap is a work of ‘many hands,’ it may not be obvious who is to blame
because frequently its most salient and immediate causal antecedents do not converge with its
locus of decision-making. The conditions for blame, therefore, are not satisfied in a way
normally satisfied when a single individual is held blameworthy for harm” (29). In the case of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the disaster can be classified as a problem of many hands,
whereby a series of decisions and events led to the spillage in the Gulf of Mexico. While the
issue of many hands is faced with the challenge of accountability, it does not mean that
individual decision-makers are blamed and should not account for their unethical practices
(Noorman, 2020). For instance, the management of BP cannot escape responsibility and blame it
on the engineers, while the engineers cannot pass the blame to their clients. However, the
problem of many hands can be employed in understanding and analyzing the ethics involved in
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It can be recognized that some isolated decision was made due
to the ignorance of the broader understanding of the risks involved. BP can make the case that
they had expectations that competent engineers should have seen the risk and implications of the
decisions made and made the necessary recommendations. The challenge is identifying
responsibility and accountability for questionable decision-making in a way that eliminates the
chances of bad judgments in the future. However, this is a challenging task due to the
complexities surrounding the decision-making of such a project. However, the complexities in
decision-making do not remove the need for accountability and rectification of ethics within the
organization.
When many individuals and stakeholders with diverse interests are involved in decisions
about complex projects such as infrastructure construction, serious failures can occur, with each
individual attempting to absolve themselves from the responsibilities. According to Herkert et al.
(2020), individuals absolve from responsibility, arguing that there were too many decisions and
too many people making them and thus arguing that it is difficult to determine that the problem
was going to occur. This is often the excuse as individuals and institutions attempt to abdicate
the responsibility for harm or disaster. For instance, in the case of Deepwater Horizon, there
 14

were attempts by those directly involved to abdicate their responsibility for the disaster that
occurred at their oil rig. As Thompson (2014) indicated, too many hands mainly occur within
large-scale ethical failures in engineering, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Possible
examples in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of difficulties in the assignment of moral
responsibility due to problem of many hands includes; the failure of the good casing seal
resulting in hydrocarbons entering the rise, the gas igniting on the rig losing power and drifting,
the rising pipe which became bent due to the pressure difference resulting to the blind shear ram
this not completely shutting the oil and the circuits of the blind shear rams failing in different
places. The responsibility for the above failures can be attributed to the engineers, the companies
that hired them, and BP's overall responsibility as it owned the rig.

3.0 Discussion
Sss

The Deepwater Horizon case is reminiscent of other studied engineering case studies
which have occurred in the past. The engineering ethics case studies often utilize engineers and
corporates being aware of unsafe actions undertaken in developing a project and, despite this
knowledge ignoring it and signing it off for use (Coeckelbergh, 2012). The Deepwater Horizon
oil spill involved unethical behaviour by engineers and other stakeholders, creating an unsafe
working environment, knowingly resulting in loss of life, property and damage to the
environment. Given the circumstances of the series of events leading to the disaster, there is a
need for more focus, such as requiring professional registration of all engineers with government
licensing boards given more oversight authority (Gotterbarn & Miller, 2009). However, most
engineering work within large projects has led to industry exemption with little oversight of the
engineering conduct. Registering engineers can empower them with safety concerns and ethical
decision-making (Harris, 2008). In agreement, Herkert et al. (2020) indicate that oversight
authorities from the government can help oversee the engineers' conduct and ensure that public
safety is the utmost focus in carrying out any project. This can help improve the ethical conduct
of engineers and reinforce professionalism and integrity.

In addition to the focus on the engineers, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill revealed that
BP had a poor ethical culture at the time, which contributed to the disaster. According to Harris
(2008), ethical culture involves promoting strong ethical values and guidelines and
 15

understanding ethical frameworks to utilize and promote high ethical leaders. In BP's case,
developing a strong compliance department for all its employees, including engineers, can help
secure ethical culture and decision-making. The compliance department can also analyze and
review ethical concerns and complaints about the company's employees. Ethical leadership can
also help BP avoid such disasters in future. For instance, developing a structure where the
engineers are making reports to a chief engineer rather than business managers who have little
understanding of how to measure and evaluate the integrity of the work done can further help
improve public safety in this project.

In most cases, ethical reflection in engineering and business is often reactive. However,
in recent years, there have been attempts to integrate ethics proactively from the design,
development and implementation phases of projects to ensure a strong background in the running
of the projects (Coecklbergh, 2012). According to Davis (2012), engineering ethics need to be
approached as in any other profession, such as law and medicine, whereby the professionals are
restricted to a specific moral ideal understood as holding public safety, welfare and health to be
of paramount importance. This has been expressed in a number of the engineering code of ethics.
BP must be able to take responsibility for failing its obligations to the public and other
stakeholders. Ferrell and Fraedrich (2021) indicate that the government also plays a critical role
in protecting the public, whereby it should be able to provide oversight to such organizations
independently. However, Hertkert et al. (2020) hold that the government's main responsibility in
preventing disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is developing laws and regulations that
companies must adhere to in their business practices. This includes ensuring that ethics and
integrity are adhered to.

4.0 Conclusion
Engineering societies and bodies can also play a part in improving ethics by reinforcing
the code of ethics and providing educational opportunities for understanding ethics and the
ethical responsibilities of engineers. The case of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill can thus provide
valuable lessons for the profession of engineering and other practitioners on their ethical
responsibilities. While safety is not cheap, carelessness and ignorance in engineering design in
executing cost minimization and adhering to strict schedules are costly. Using any standard
 16

ethical analysis such as duty, consequentialist, and virtue frameworks in ethical decision-making
falls short due to the complexities of decision-making in large infrastructure projects.
The Deepwater Horizon case study illustrates the problem of many hands whereby many
people made different decisions resulting in a series of events leading to the disaster. This makes
it challenging to understand ethical decision-making based on traditional ethical frameworks.
Instead, engineering ethics enables a more detailed and specific ethical analysis of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. By focusing on engineering ethics, the analysis allows for a comprehensive
review of the different and specific aspects that occurred and led to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill.
BP failed in its obligations and ethical responsibility of protecting the public. Within the
minimum standards, BP was obliged to ensure that proper designs and construction of the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig and effective safety measures were implemented in the event of an
accident. However, their failure to meet these obligations led to a disaster with immediate and
long-term impacts still felt years later. The engineers responsible for the construction of the oil
rig were unable to meet their professional, ethical responsibilities, a common challenge that
requires serious attention from the oil industry, professional societies and the government. The
analysis reveals the importance of proactive ethical reflection through the project phases
ensuring that no shortcuts or excuses, such as cost and schedule issues, are used to justify the
decision-making of those involved.
 17

References
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics-AIAA. (2013). Code of Ethics,
https://www.aiaa.org/about/Governance/Code-of-Ethics.
BP. (2023). About BP Company. https://www.bp.com/
Clement, T. P., & John, G. F. (2022). A perspective on the state of Deepwater Horizon oil spill
related tarball contamination and its impacts on Alabama beaches. Current Opinion in
Chemical Engineering, 36, 100799.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211339822000090
Coeckelbergh, M. (2012). Moral responsibility, technology, and experiences of the tragic: from
Kierkegaard to offshore engineering. Science and engineering ethics, 18(1), 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9233-3
Crandall, W., Parnell, J. & Spillan, J, (2016). The BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. London, Sage.
Davis, M. (2012). “Ain’t no one here but us social forces”: Constructing the professional
responsibility of engineers. Sci Eng Ethics, 18(1), 13–34.
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11948-010-9225-3
Ebinger, C. (2016). 6 years from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill: What we’ve learned, and
what we shouldn’t misunderstand, Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2016/04/20/6-years-from-the-bp-
deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-what-weve-learned-and-what-we-shouldnt-misunderstand
Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2021). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases.
Cengage learning.https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=o38xEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=ethical+frameworks+decision+
making+in+organisations&ots=Vz_z0TaITa&sig=5j70-guC6Sg48-xL0BAcm5W5O7g
French-McCay, D. P., Robinson, H., Bock, M., Crowley, D., Schuler, P., & Rowe, J. J. (2022).
Counter-historical study of alternative dispersant use in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 180, 113778.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X2200460X
 18

Gotterbarn, D., & Miller, K. W. (2009). The public is the priority: Making decisions using the
software engineering code of ethics. Computer, 42(6), 66–73.
https://doi.org/10.1109%2FMC.2009.204
Gupta, H., Kumar, A., & Wasan, P. (2021). Industry 4.0, cleaner production and circular
economy: An integrative framework for evaluating ethical and sustainable business
performance of manufacturing organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295,
126253. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262100473X
Harris, C. E. (2008). The good engineer: Giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11948-008-9068-3
Herkert, J., Borenstein, J. & Miller, K. (2020). The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons for Engineering
Ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 2957–2974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00252-y
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-IEEE. (2017). IEEE Code of Ethics.
https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html.
Metcalf, J., & Moss, E. (2019). Owning ethics: Corporate logics, silicon valley, and the
institutionalization of ethics. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 86(2), 449-
476. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/732185/summary
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. (2017, April 20). Deepwater Horizon oil spill
settlements: Where the money went. https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/deepwater-
horizon-oil-spill-settlements-where-money-went
National Research Council (2012). Committee on the Analysis of Causes of the Deepwater
Horizon Explosion, Fire, and Oil Spill to Identify Measures to Prevent Similar Accidents
in the Future. Macondo well Deepwater Horizon blowout: lessons for improving offshore
drilling safety, Washington, DC National Academies Press.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/initiative/committee-on-the-analysis-of-causes-of-the-
deepwater-horizon-explosion-fire-and-oil-spill-to-identify-measures-to-prevent-similar-
accidents-to-the-future
Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering
Ethics, 2(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02639315
Noorman, M. (2020). Computing and moral responsibility. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.). The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring),
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/computing-responsibility.
 19

Schumm, R. & Rochette, J. (2020). What regulation of the offshore sector 10 years after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill? IDDRI.
https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/blog-post/what-regulation-offshore-
sector-10-years-after-deepwater-horizon
Stewart, P., Groth, C. P., Huynh, T. B., Gorman Ng, M., Pratt, G. C., Arnold, S. F., ... & Stenzel,
M. R. (2022). Assessing exposures from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and
cleanup. Annals of work exposures and health, 66(Supplement_1), i3-i22.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/66/Supplement_1/i3/6564759
Thompson, D. F. (2014). Responsibility for failures of government: The problem of many
hands. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(3), 259–273.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0275074014524013
Valentine, S., & Godkin, L. (2019). Moral intensity, ethical decision making, and whistleblowing
intention. Journal of Business Research, 98, 277-288.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319300104
Vizcarra, H. (2020, April 5). Deepwater Horizon Ten Years Later: Reviewing agency and
regulatory reforms. Harvard Law. https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2020/05/deepwater-
horizon-ten-years-later-reviewing-agency-and-regulatory- reforms/
Wise, S. A., Rodgers, R. P., Reddy, C. M., Nelson, R. K., Kujawinski, E. B., Wade, T. L., ... &
Liu, Z. (2022). Advances in Chemical Analysis of Oil Spills Since the Deepwater
Horizon Disaster. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 1-60.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408347.2022.2039093
Wittmer, D. P. (2019). Ethical decision-making. In Handbook of administrative ethics (pp. 481-
507). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781482270457-
28/ethical-decision-making-dennis-wittmer